Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 13 85 PC MinutesAugust 13, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 13, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice - Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Harry Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the July 30, 1985 meeting were approved as written. Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District - Proposal to establish. Pursuant to Title 15.1, Chapter 26 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The proposed district is located on the east and west sides of Rt. 20 North and the north and south sides of Rt. 612 near Eastham. The proposed district is comprised of 764.75 acres, and is described as Tax Map 63, parcels 1, 1A, lAl, 2, 4, 26, 27 and 28. The advisory committee has recommended approval as submitted. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. It was determined staff concurs with the Advisory Committee's finding that the proposed district is appropriate for this area and is recommending approval as submitted. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Peggy Van Yahres, representing the applicants, addressed the Commission. She stated these three farms are managed by the same person and actually work as a unit. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould moved that the recommendations of the Advisory Committee in regard to the Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District be adopted and recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. ICFA Final Plat - Proposal to subdivide a ±4.5 acre parcel into two lots; one measuring 1.3 acres and the residue measuring ±3.16 acres. Property, is located on south side of Rte. 250W just west of its intersection with Ednam Drive. Tax Map 59D(2), parcel 17. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. 1-79 August 13, 1985 Page 2 Ms. Diehl asked for a clarification of the variance that the applicant has received relating to setback requirements from the scenic highway (Rt. 250W). Particularly, she found the phrase "reserved highway within the scenic highway" confusing. Ms. Patterson explained that additional right-of-way is being reserved to accommodate the improvements that are scheduled for Rt. 250, and the setback is measured from the reservation line. The variance allows the applicant to be closer to the reservation line than the ordinance normally requires. Mr. Payne further explained that the scenic highway setback is measured from the reserved right-of-way rather than the actual right-of-way and the variance allows the applicant to be 15 feet from the reserved right-of-way. He added that he did not know the difference since he was not aware of how much additional was reserved. Ms. Patterson stated the parking spaces are 55 feet from the ex- isting edge of pavement, but she did not know how far they would be from the eventual edge of pavement. Mr. Michel asked for clarification of the Highway Department's entrance requirements. Ms. Patterson stated that some improvements were required to the entrance and made a condition of various site plans and since that condition has been met, it does not need to be attached to this plat. Mr. Charles Ancona, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the Highway Department has issued a permit for the improvements to the entrance to Ednam Forest. He explained that that condition has been met, i.e. a permit has been received, a bond has been posted, and the applicant is doing what the Highway Department has recommended in regard to widening the entrance and the decel lane. He stated this must be completed before the first certificate of occupancy is issued. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Ms. Patterson confirmed that the variance was in place at the time the site plan was approved. Ms. Diehl moved that the ICFA Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will not be signed until the following condition has been met: a. County Attorney approval of revised maintenance agreements. UIEW August 13, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Since the meeting was running ahead of scheduled agenda times, the Chairman asked Mr. Skove to give his report on the LURC Committee. Mr. Skove addressed the Commission and and offered the following comments: --The original purpose of the Committee was to study the County's land use regulations with emphasis on how they work. --It is the consensus of the Committee that there is frustration among developers, citizens and county repre- sentatives as to how the regulations are working. Though there is frustration, no one feels a real crisis exists. --The Committee visited other jurisdictions with similar growth problems with the conclusion that Albemarle County is not out -of -line in how long it takes to get a site plan approved. hAll jurisdictions have different methods of dealingy e problems, but the time results and frustrations are basically the same. --A major difference is the amount of time this planning commission spends on detailed site plan review, it being the highest of any of the jurisdictions. --A meeting with citizens was held and it was felt that citizens are not getting adequate information on the site plan process. There was confusion as to the Commission's role in relation to site plans. --There seems to be some problems with internal coordination between county offices, particularly with the Highway Department. --County policies as distinguished from written regulations are not always clear. It was felt practices and policies should be put in writing, i.e. what is general policy as opposed to what is regulation. --There were some complaints about staff attitude. --The Committee will recommend that the county consider hiring an "expediter" who would report directly to Bob Tucker, but would not be attached to any department. The person would try to coordinate the different depart- ments, and act as a contact point with the public. --The Committee will recommend that the Planning Commission review only a concept plan, but will not have all the detailed information such as engineering data, etc. --A better intake procedure will be recommended. Mr. Michel added that the only difference in seeing a "concept" plan is that the engineering data would not be done. Everything that is to be built will still be shown, including easements, pipes, etc., but such things as the size of pipes will not be shown. Mr. Skove stated the Committee will meet again on Thursday (15th) and a report will be drafted which will be sent to the Board of /8/ August 13, 1985 Page 4 Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman asked how other jurisdictions which do not review detailed site plans and subdivisions have found that method to work. Mr. Skove responded that most jurisdictions do not review site plans and subdivisions. Mr. Bowerman asked how other jurisdictions deal with public input and appeals. Mr. Skove responded that some have a "consent" type of agenda. Ms. Diehl asked if the concern about lack of information had come from adjacent owners or from developers. Mr. Skove responded the concern was from adjacent owners since it was felt that the information that is sent out often does not really say, a lot and it is necessary to make a trip to the office to get detailed information. Ms. Cooke asked if the Committee has come up with any recommenda- tions as to how citizens can be provided with clearer information. Mr. Skove responded that it is felt that it could be done better, but it will not be possible to inform everyone since people will hear what they want to hear. It was determined this issue would be discussed at the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors scheduled for Wednesday, October 2, 4:00. Bruce Van der Linde Final Plat - Proposal to subdivide ±323 acre parcel into one parcel measuring 27.235 acres with the residue measuring ±296 acres. Property, located on a private road on the east side of Rt. 640 approximately ±.5 mile south of its intersection with Rt. 747. Tax Map 34, parcel 50. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that the parcel is a pipestem with some frontage on Rt. 641. The applicant is willing to utilize Helios Path as the access with the pipestem possibly being added to one of the adjacent parcels. Ms. Patterson confirmed that since Health Department approval has been received, staff is recommending approval. There being neither applicant nor public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Patterson explained that staff prefers that Helios path be used as the access to minimize the number of entrances on the state road and to make use of an existing internal road. Ms. Patterson confirmed that this is being reviewed by the Commission because it is served by a private road and this will make more than two lots on a private road. /11,7 August 13, 1985 Page 5 In response to Mr. Gould's question about development rights, Ms. Patterson explained that the entire 323 acres has no development rights left so it can only be divided into parcels of 21 acres or greater. This parcel is one of those and of the 296 acres residue, only parcels.of 21 acres or greater can be created. Mr. Michel moved that the Bruce Van der Linde Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Revised private road maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney; b. Note location of permanent monuments to be set and type of monument material; C. Note scale of plat; d. Note that access to parcel and residue are restricted to Helios Path; e. Note that residue may not be further divided without issuance of a special use permit; Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Colston Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 12 lots ±9 acres from I,r a ±117 acre parcel. Located on the south side of Rt. 637 at its intersection with Rt. 708. Tax Map 73, parcel 33. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that Health Department approval of septic sites has been received. Regarding the dispute over the ownership of a strip of land (as discussed at a previous meeting), she reported that dispute has been settled to the satisfaction of the County Attorney, Mr. St. John. She also confirmed that Colston Drive will be a state road. It was determined that a 15 foot wide bridal easement is noted along external boundaries. Mr. Payne stated it does not have to be shown unless staff requires it to be shown. He stated it is in the document. Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of 'supplementary declarations." Mr. Payne explained that a set of documents was prepared relating to Section One and they do not apply to this section, which is not unusual. He stated that now the applicant will probably put a document to record which incorporates the same items for Section Two as for Section One. In reply to Mr. Cogan's question, Ms. Patterson stated that the County Engineer had made no comments regarding the slopes of some of the lots. However, she added that it had been a condition when the lots north of the creek were approved that building sites on slopes of less than 25% jf3 August 13, 1985 Page 6 must be approved for the lots south of the creek which are these lots. She stated the lots have been field surveyed and found to be less than 25%. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Rick Thompson, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Regarding the issuance of an erosion control permit as a condition, he asked if that could be allowed to mean not at the actual issuance of the erosion control permit, which takes place after a construction meeting for the road, but rather allow it to mean bonding of the road. Then, after the road is bonded and the plat is approved, bids can be received. He indicated it was an issue related to the amount of time involved in getting the bids in and choosing a contractor. He stated he had discussed this with Mr. Keeler who had no objections. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Patterson if she had any problem with this request. She responded that the requirement for an erosion control permit is part of the subdivision ordinance and this problem has been recently discussed. She explained that what happens is someone wishes to put a plat to record but a contractor for doing the earth work has not yet been hired. Thus, the party who will benefit most from the pre -construction conference has not yet been contracted. Therefore, staff has been signing plats once the plan is approved and the bond is posted with the understanding that no work can be done on the site until the conference has taken place. Ms. Patterson confirmed that this bonding is contemplated in the conditions of staff and it is not necessary to make any changes to allow staff to handle the matter in this way. Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance is perfectly clear on the issue and if the staff has a procedure that is satisfactory to them for handling this issue, that is acceptable. He quoted the following from Section 18-24 of the Subdivision Ordinance: No final subdivision plat shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors, or its agent, unless and.until the subdivider shall have obtained an erosion control permit pursuant to Chapter 7 of this Code.... He added that if the staff has an administrative way of handling the issue, that is acceptable. Mr. Robb, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated he has posted a bond for both the erosion control permit and the road for Phase One (north of the stream). He stated he is in the process of getting bids from contractors. He stated it was a matter of "getting the cart before the horse," i.e. an erosion control permit cannot be obtained until a contractor has met with the erosion control people and a contractor cannot two be chosen until all the bids are in. Therefore, it becomes almost impossible to totally comply without some administrative discretion. i ¢Ll August 13, 1985 Page 7 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated it appears the applicant has addressed the concerns of the Commission. Ms. Diehl moved that the Colston Preliminary Plat - Lots 8-12 be approved subject to the following conditions and including administrative approval of the final plat: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations; C. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. County Engineer approval of building sites; e. County Attorney approval of Supplementary Declarations to include these lots; f. Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Rt. 708, if not previously done; g. Planning staff approval of road name. 2. The final plat may be administratively approved. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Wards Run Farm Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create six lots averaging 30 acres from a 180 acre parcel. Located on the south side of Rt. 609 just east of its intersection with Rt. 671. Tax Map 28, parcels 29 and 33A. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Dixon, representing the owner, addressed the Commission. He stated this proposal meets all the requirements of the sub- division ordinance and the comprehensive plan and is very simple. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Richard Powley addressed the Commission. He stated he was one of the owners of a lot on a proposed right-of-way. He stated when he bought his property he was under the impression that the right-of-way (i.e. the 50 foot right-of-way coming off Rt. 609) led back to his land, his father's land and a cemetery. He indicated he was uncertain as to the status of the right-cf-way but felt that it should be clarified before taking action on this proposal. He stated it appears that the applicant is trying to "put another right-of-way into his right-of-way." /,?5 August 13, 1985 Page 8 Ms. Rosalee McCallister addressed the Commission. She indicated she had the same concern as Mr. Powley particularly in regard to the traffic that will be on the proposed road. A representative of the applicant addressed the Commission and stated that the 50 foot strip in question is owned by the applicant, though the landowners along the right-of-way have the right to use it. However, he stated that when the neighboring landowners bought their property they knew that it was dedicated to public use since this is stated plainly on their plats. Mr. Roger Ray, engineer for the applicant, confirmed that there is a plat of record showing that the right-of-way was dedicated to public use. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Ray stated he was notaware of any additional easement through the applicant's proposed easement to serve the property in the rear. Mr. Dixon explained that this was originally two pieces of property and an old dividing line can be seen (he pointed this out to the Commission). He stated the applicant is aware that access must be left to the cemetery. It was determined these six parcels are the entire tract owned by the applicant. Mr. Dixon stated that if an additional right-of-way does exist it is not the applicant's intention to close anything. Mr. Skove asked Mr. Payne if there were a way to tell, just from looking at this plat, if the right-of-way has been dedicated and accepted. Mr.Payne replied that it was not possible to tell from this plat, but there is a deed book citation (Deed Book 436) which speaks to this issue. He explained that this deed book covers a period during the 60's at which time it was not unusual to have roads dedicated to public use which were not constructed. He stated that it appears that a road was shown on a sub- division plat and it would not need to be seperately accepted since it would be deemed to be accepted by the recordation of the subdivision plat. Mr. Payne confirmed that if it should be found that a mistake has been made and an exclusive right-of-way does exist, then this application would be invalid. August 13, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Ray to explain the procedure he follows before this can be put to record. Mr. Ray explained that he goes to the chain of title in the Clerk's Office and gets any deeds or plats that are of record. He is then governed by what those deeds and plats have recorded on them. However, he stated that it is possible that an old right-of-way might not be brought forward in chains of title and thus it could be possible that an old one exists. He stated, however, that a dedicated right-of-way has been shown to exist, and no further rights -of - way have been discovered. Mr. Bowerman stated he understood the concerns of the public, but they bought their property along a public right-of-way which they, as well as other members of the public, have a right to use. He stated he had no problems with this plat. Mr. Skove pointed out that if the subdivision is approved the road will become a public one and the state will maintain it, which will be of benefit to all the property owners. Mr. Cogan moved that the Wards Run Farm Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions, including administrative approval of the final plat: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; b. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations; d. Delete note "CL of proposed 50' private road," and note side and rear setbacks; e. Planning staff approval of road name. 2. The final plat may be administratively approved. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. E. Morris Chisholm Final Plat - Proposal to create five lots with an average lot size of 2.42 acres from a 13.09 acre site. Located on the east side of Rt. 664 just northeast of its intersection with Rt. 663. Tax Map 19, parcel 12E. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. /,f7 August 13, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated the applicant has no objections to the conditions of staff. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Ray confirmed that the drainage easement across the Breeden property is an existing drainage easement and is of record. Mr. Cogan moved that the E. Morris Chisholm Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations; C. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Staff approval of technical items on plat: • material of permanent reference monuments; • tax map and parcel number. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Hunt Country Estates Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create eleven lots ranging from 3.03 to 45.59 acres, for an average of 10 acres, with one lot in residue, from a 112 acre parcel. Located north side of Rt. 676, just west of its intersection with Rt. 601. Tax Map 43, parcels 25, 26, 27A. Jack Jouette Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She also explained the revisions that have been made by the applicant in an attempt to meet the concerns of staff. She also added the following condition: l.g. Lot No. 1 to be redesigned to include septic tank and fields for existing house. Ms. Patterson also stated that Health Department approval has been received. It was determined the residue parcel, 45.5 acres, has no development rights and could only be a total of 2 lots in the future. Ms. Patterson stated that, in this case, staff has no objection to the continued use of the existing entrance to serve just one lot. She explained that it would be difficult to require the existing house to use the new road. *40 /88 August 13, 1985 Page 11 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Marcia Joseph, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She explained that of the two existing entrances for the existing house, one will be closed, and the Highway Department has stated that the proposed entrances are adequate. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that the pond that is in question is not the one shown on the drawing. Mr. Bowerman determined that Mr. Peters, who had written the letter of objection was present and had not understood when the meeting had been opened to public comment. Therefore, the Chairman reopened the public hearing. Mr. Franklin Peters, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was opposed to the proposal and voiced the following concerns: --Runoff from the development polluting his pond. --Land is not suitable for numerous septic fields. --Dangerous condition of the road. --Highway Department review had been inadequate and condition of the road and the number of entrances should be studied further. --This is in opposition to what the Comprehensive Plan calls for in this area, i.e. that it is to remain a "green belt." Mr. Peters expressed concern that the Commission and the Board of Supervisors are not following the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cogan stated he felt Mr. Peters' interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan was incorrect since it recommends a density of one dwelling unit/10 acres for this area. Mr. Peters stated he had based his interpretation of the Plan on comments from Mr. Lindstrom. There being no further public comment, the Chairman again closed the public hearing. Ms. Patterson pointed out that the concept of development rights was made a part of the zoning ordinance in 1980 to protect the rural area. She stated that what is being proposed in this application is by -right development and anything beyond that will require a special use permit and will be subject to all comprehensive plan standards. Regarding Mr. Peters'pond problems, Ms. Diehl stated that the source of the foam on the pond has not been definitely established. She advised that he might wish to follow Mr. Norris' suggestions and have testing done. Mr. Skove stated he would be interested in the results of the testing if he chooses to have it done. VVI August 13, 1985 Page 12 It was determined there is time between now and the time of final plat approval for Mr. Peters to address his concerns with the Highway Department. Mr. Skove moved that the Hunt Country Estates Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions, including administrative approval of the final plat provided there are not radical problems: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met. a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of right turn lane and road and drainage plans and computations; C. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. County attorney approval of homeowner documents; e. Planning staff approval of road name; f. Note: "No further division without special use permit"; g. Lot No. 1 to be redesigned to include septic tank and fields for existing house. 2. The final plat may be administratively approved. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Cogan stated that he was not enthusiastic about this sub- division but it does meet the requirements of the ordinance. The above -stated motion for approval was unanimously approved. Ms. Patterson introduced Mr. David Bennish, newly hired site planner, to the Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m. DS 9 / 19O